Answering Daniel Pipes's "Test"

As much as I hate this, someone has to do it... and right this time. Daniel Pipes, renowned Islamophobic hatemongerer and "terrorism" expert, issued a sort of "test" that world-famous sheikh, Hamza Yusuf Hanson, "failed" (according to Monsieur Pipes). Let's just recount that Daniel Pipes is no expert on the MidEast or Islam for that matter. He also wants to promote his own "version" of Islam: one that is subservient to Western values and needs.

Anyways, as I said before, I hate Pipes, but if anything, someone has to stop this guy's nonsensical psychobabble on the religion that he knows naught about.

In this article that I have provided, he states a position that many ignorant and defiant Islamophobic "scholars" have presented: a way to distinguish between "real" and "phony" moderation. In his opinion, "real" moderation involves not supporting any resistance to dictatorships, even violent resistance. Another logic he goes by is that whosoever supports Bin Laden and his like are extremists and thus condone suicide bombings. I for one do not; there are many in the MidEast who do, but may not condone his practices. There is also the association with "terrorists", indicative of his McCarthyist attitude in rooting out suspected "militant Muslims" (that got a laugh out of me when I first heard about it).

Let's answer his questions, shall we?

"Do you condone or condemn the Palestinians, Chechens, and Kashmiris who give up their lives to kill enemy civilians?"

My answer to this is "no": enemy civilians are not a target, EVEN in times of war. The Prophet (peace be upon him) once said to his companions that when they are invading enemy territory in times of war, they should not "kill women, children, seniors and religious people (clergy)", nor should they "uproot trees" or "destroy properties". Furthermore, the Quran forbids suicide, so why should I condone something that does not conform to my beliefs? Moreover, while I do not condone such acts, many of these acts, especially in the case of the Palestinians, have been found to be somewhat responsive towards Israeli brutality. However, that does not mean I condone them: I'd rather have rebels attack enemy combatants who aggress FIRST, not innocent civilians.

"Will you condemn by name as terrorist groups such organizations as Abu Sayyaf, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Groupe Islamique Armée, Hamas, Harakat ul-Mujahidin, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, and al-Qaida?"

Abu Sayyaf's actions are deplorable, even though they started out as a result of President Marcos's brutal rule. Still, I will condemn their actions. Al Gama'a al-Islamiyya is also a group worthy of condemnation. Groupe Islamique Armee... I don't know about them much, but I have to see their actions now. I have condemned Hamas's actions, but I have not condemned them as a group as they are now the PNA. Hizbullah is a radical Shi'ite group, but they were responsible for the Liberation of South Lebanon. Islamic Jihad is worthy of condemnation because they are also part of the former PNA which stripped Palestinians from their cash. Al-Qaida as well deserves condemnation, but whatever is happening in Iraq is a result of occupation, and a result of Iraq's "Palestinization". Now, I deflect the question to Pipes: Do you condone Israeli terrorism? It appears so, because your stance on the conflict in Palestine is by definition extremist. What about Coalition terrorism in Iraq? Or Musharraf's suckup government? What about Blair's police state?

I thought so.

Anyways, moving on...

"Should Muslim women have equal rights with men (for example, in inheritance shares or court testimony)?"

Yes and no. Yes, in that women have equal rights as men when it comes to the penal code. No, because women have a different role in Islamic society. With regards to economic affairs, men have a better testimonial right. However, there are situations where women have more testimonial rights. With regards to inheritance, women may have less inheritance should a relative pass away; however, she is provided with as much wealth as she wants by her husband, and disposes as much as she wants from her own wealth. A woman in Islam is also given status: she wears the hijab as a means to preserve her own chastity, and is given the liberty to cover herself and her body, without attracting too much attention from onlookers. However, I ask you, Mr. Pipes: Is undressing in public bars an issue of "more rights" for a woman, or is it degrading? Also, why are women being sexually assaulted in the West, as well as date-raped? Of course, a woman has liberty, but is the "freedom" given to women in the West seriously "freedom"?

Moving to more of your rhetoric,

"Is jihad, meaning a form of warfare, acceptable in today's world?"

Jihad is NOT a form of warfare. It is a form of struggle for inner betterness, as well as striving for the cause of God in a most virtuous way. Why, if a nation were to attack me, I would accept Jihad in its truest meaning as a form of warfare: attack combatants, and spare all those who do not aggress, as well as preserve nature and property.

"Do you accept the validity of other religions?"

I accept the validity of Judaism and Christianity to certain extents, and the validity of other Islamic sects to an extent. Those are my personal beliefs. Tolerance does not necessarily include self-acceptance. I may appreciate Jewish teachings and beliefs, but I don't necessarily have to accept them into my core beliefs. Moreover, I can tolerate Jews and Judaism, as both are good, but I don't have to accept Judaism as a religion. Moreover, what makes you so sure that you're going to accept Islam's validity? You don't. It's no big, and thus this question is flawed in the sense that it can be applied to any religion, and can't be used as a criterion to distinguish extremists from moderates.

Next question, which is a no-brainer.

"Do Muslims have anything to learn from the West?"

I believe that everyone has something to learn from everyone else.

"Should non-Muslims enjoy completely equal civil rights with Muslims?"

Yes: that's how it always been under Islamic rule. The fact that we have different names for the taxes (jizya and zakat) or the people under Islamic rule does not make it more or less segregational).

"May Muslims convert to other religions?"

Yes: God gave us free will to do whatever we want in this life, but He will judge those who apostasize on Judgement Day.

" May Muslim women marry non-Muslim men?"

Unfortunately, no. Islam recommends Muslim men to marry Muslim women, just like any other religion almost discourages its believers from not intermarrying with those of other beliefs. However, Muslim men may marry non-Muslim women and vice-versa, but neither is recommended.

"Do you accept the laws of a majority non-Muslim government and unreservedly pledge allegiance to that government?"

I may accept the laws, but because I'm a non-partisan, I pledge allegiance to none but God.

"Should the state impose religious observance, such as banning food service during Ramadan?"

Not at all. In Islamic countries other than Saudi Arabia, food services still run during the day.

"When Islamic customs conflict with secular laws (e.g., covering the face for drivers' license pictures), which should give way?"

There is no Islamic law that bans pictures on ID's.

"Are Sufis and Shi'ites fully legitimate Muslims? "

The Prophet (peace be upon him) clearly said that those who will go to Heaven from amongst the Muslims are the Ahl Al Sunna wal Jama'ah. However, this does not entirely illegitimize other sects of Islam, but it does discourage us from swaying towards these sects, which are full of practices that are condemned by Islam, such as mysticism.

"Do you see Muslims who disagree with you as having fallen into unbelief?"

Such as Muslim Zionists? Not entirely, but I would say that they have been misguided.

"Is takfir (condemning fellow Muslims with whom one has disagreements as unbelievers) an acceptable practice?"

No, because it goes against the principles of Islamic tolerance of others.

"Do you accept the legitimacy of scholarly inquiry into the origins of Islam?"

Yes, but many of these inquiries tend to be faulty.

"Who was responsible for the 9/11 suicide hijackings?"

Twenty nutcases who did not adhere to Islamic code. However, I'd like a full investigation into what caused 9-11.

"Do you accept enhanced security measures to fight militant Islam, even if this means extra scrutiny of yourself (for example, at airline security)?"

I think Ben Franklin hit the nail on the head when he said, "Those who sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither." I am also against the Patriot Act. However, this does not make me an extremist.

"Do you agree that institutions accused of funding terrorism should be shut down, or do you see this a symptom of bias?"

How do you know that these institutions fund "terror"? What if they don't? But if they do, then do what you wish.

"Do you accept that Western countries are majority-Christian and secular or do you seek to transform them into majority-Muslim countries ruled by Islamic law?"

As a Muslim and thus a strong believer in non-aggression, I seek not to change regimes. However, should the West carry out an all-out invasion against us, we will have no choice but to present Islam to them as a way to end their evils.

This "test" is seriously flawed, because there are many criteria I have assessed above that do not distinguish an extremist from a moderate. In conclusion, I would just like to give this little piece of advice to Mr. Pipes: if you want to find out who is a moderate and who is an extremist, let Muslims do it, not you. And furthermore, I think the world would be better off without Pipes's hatemongering.

Salaam, from
Saracen